Stephen Carlson wrote:I don't want to get into a major discussion of textual criticism, but having done my dissertation on the textual history of Galatians ...

This would be really interesting to explore in a separate thread - the places where the texts diverge significantly, comparing the readings. Is that something you could walk us through, perhaps?

Jonathan, are you suggesting that we abandon our long-standing avoidance of discussions of textual criticism (generally, as opposed to how it bears upon a particular passage under discussion)? If we really want to take this step, I think we would probably need a new forum for it. But this is something that we've steered clear of heretofore because it's the focus of one or more other forums.

Most of what textual criticism does is outside the scope of B-Greek: weighing the manuscript support, evaluation the direction of scribal errors, looking at authorial style, etc. But there is one aspect that can fit the forum and that is assessing whether and to what extent do variant readings mean different things. Sometimes, the different is obvious, but other times, especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle. This particular inquiry may be appropriate for the forum.

Stephen Carlson wrote:Most of what textual criticism does is outside the scope of B-Greek: weighing the manuscript support, evaluation the direction of scribal errors, looking at authorial style, etc.

I agree.

Stephen Carlson wrote:But there is one aspect that can fit the forum and that is assessing whether and to what extent do variant readings mean different things. Sometimes, the different is obvious, but other times, especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle. This particular inquiry may be appropriate for the forum.

Stephen Carlson wrote:But there is one aspect that can fit the forum and that is assessing whether and to what extent do variant readings mean different things. Sometimes, the different is obvious, but other times, especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle. This particular inquiry may be appropriate for the forum.

Yes - I really think that would be interesting and useful.

Evaluating the results of the researches of textual critics is different from going into (too far) into their methods. For a whie, I sudied and read the GNT with B. Ward Powers (some of whose well-asserted idiosyncracities an older generation of B-Greekers will be familiar with). In the classroom - except for the most elementary level classes - always reads with one eye on the text and the other in the variant readings. I think that is a usual part of looking at a passage for many readers. The better reference works cover the Greek language as presented in the variant readings, not only a fixed text. There have always been varient readings - a standard text is not a necessity and some variety has always added perspective to our study of the New Testament. I think that has a place here.

Stephen Carlson wrote:But there is one aspect that can fit the forum and that is assessing whether and to what extent do variant readings mean different things. Sometimes, the different is obvious, but other times, especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle. This particular inquiry may be appropriate for the forum.

The idea is sound, but the level of Greek required to do this is very high. It is a step up in student's knowledge of Greek to know for example the difference between τελέω (finished, no more to be done) and τελειόω (finished, resulting in perfection). In 1 Corinthinans 12:9 ἡ γὰρ δύναμίς (μου) ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ τελειοῦται (τελεῖται), there may have been a "correction" at some point to match the understood sense. To understand transmission as an individual engagement with the text (in a way that was possible for Greek proficient scribes that could do more than just copy could do) also requires us to have a high level of Greek to follow what is going on when a scribe (or a church father) tried to improve (or adapt) a text.

SC's statement in reply to another question of mine suggests that the level of Greek needed for this kind of discussion of varients raised by textual criticism in terms of the Greek language is engaging with the langauge at a more difficult level...

Stephen Carlson wrote:This is the kind of question, where it would take some digging in the lexica, finding a study, or trawling through a concordance.

(When we get stuck on the Greek that's too hard, we scurry for the reference materials)

Stephen Carlson wrote: especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle

I assume, and would like to test that during copying in Greek speaking areas is that there would be a de-"semitisms"-isation of the text by straightening out word order and adding and deleting articles where the imporovement would be deemed to be more natural ("better") Greek.

My (untested) assumption with the post about Judas (in Word Meanings) is that at the time of writing he was known to be one of the sicarii, but after the story left the context of Roman (occupied) Palestine it was only taken as a family name or toponymic. Again, the level of Greek required to test that idea is quite high.

This type of careful differentiation of meanings is one thing that led me to participate in this forum. I do not yet have enough faith in my understanding of greek to be confident of my conclusions, and, without some feedback and direction, I don't believe I will be able to move past this intermediate stage of learning. These types of discussions will be outside my abilities for some time, but I feel they would present good opportunities for me to grow.

Stephen Carlson wrote: especially for word order and article usage, the difference can be subtle

I assume, and would like to test that during copying in Greek speaking areas is that there would be a de-"semitisms"-isation of the text by straightening out word order and adding and deleting articles where the improvement would be deemed to be more natural ("better") Greek.

I haven't seen much evidence of that in Galatians, but I suppose that it could be the case in other texts, esp. Revelation. The textual changes I've observed in Paul tend to make the text clearer, less ambiguous, and more quotable.

I am working on a project that requires KNOWING what reading is being used at each variant to translate the ESV in Acts. I can not find this information anywhere. I am running into places where the ESV looks like it didn't follow the "received text." In other words it looks like either the Byzantine Text or the Western Text stands behind the translation. This is causing me headaches. Would be nice to KNOW what the critical text was behind the ESV at each point. You can do this with the NIV, SBLGNT has it in apparatus. Anything like that for the ESV?

The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

I would constantly compare the ESV against the RSV and keep an eye on the UBS4 apparatus. Perhaps they delved into the NA27th apparatus, but I'd be amazed/impressed if that was really source of the many variations. My first instinct would be to check the RSV and see if they are following or trying to update it.